Will the US take the role of defense once again? Thorgrim is correct in that our reputation has been seriously damaged these past number of years. Not only are we relied on, but we're also dismissed for our unwillingness to come forth and work together with others.

Undeniably, this issue has now drawn lines between allies of the US and those on unfriendly terms, namely Iran. Does anyone foresee any serious feud?

_________________

gomorro wrote:

Yesterday was the birthday of school pal and I met the chick of my sigh (I've talked about here before, the she-wolf I use to be inlove with)... Maaan she was using a mini-skirt too damn insane... Dude you could saw her entire soul every time she sit...

I can definitely understand the reasons behind Russian skepticism and hostility, but I also agree that a defense system would be very beneficial.

I hope we can really repair our relations with the rest of the world soon. It's fucking unfortunate what's become of our global image in recent times.

I disagree regarding the missile shield.

By enacting the shield it will be beneficial in that it would force a rogue "state" to find other means of warfare, but what it's ultimately doing is breaking deterrence. That's far worse than the possibility a rogue state will gain a nuclear weapon. Deterrence is what keeps the nuclear powers from doing anything with their weapons. What this national shield will cause is a drastic shift in favor of the Western bloc. It would have - and still would - be more appropriate (internationally) for the United States to interact with all nuclear powers, and create a multilateral missile shield. It just seems, as was evident in the Cold War, that the current administration would rather throw away their international reputation in favor of strict national interests... which I don't agree with on a personal level, but does no good for decreasing animosity and lessening conflict. The move towards a more "civilizational" approach for this administration - as is evident with their use of Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" - suggests that they are opening up the possibility of another ideological war based on identity more than philosophies. Not a Cold War, per se. Unlike the Cold War, the international system is no longer bilateral, and wouldn't be bilateral - especially with the rise of China, and other peripheral states. Needless to say, perhaps this 'ideological base' will be downplayed in the next administration.

Not to mention the slow progression Russia is making towards a new form of ideology that doesn't fully embrace Western values, nor those of former Soviet ones. I find it more intriguing that it has only truly manifested itself during this last US administration, though Putin is an important aspect of it as well. It would not surprise me if the Russians seek to revitalize moreso an arms race of a more technological nature (which recent news articles seem to allude to). It would certainly drive the US out of an economic downturn.

The Russian-Ukrainian issue will more than likely not lead to a serious conflict. It is, at this point, Russia stretching its legs. It's nothing new for Russian foreign policy to negate NATO, shut down trade of certain resources, and to threaten. It generally seems to work for their favor so far. I'd be more concerned when it doesn't.

I can definitely understand the reasons behind Russian skepticism and hostility, but I also agree that a defense system would be very beneficial.

I hope we can really repair our relations with the rest of the world soon. It's fucking unfortunate what's become of our global image in recent times.

I disagree regarding the missile shield.

What this national shield will cause is a drastic shift in favor of the Western bloc. It would have - and still would - be more appropriate (internationally) for the United States to interact with all nuclear powers, and create a multilateral missile shield.

Ultimately, You have to start somewhere to begin to create a global missile defense shield. I think its logical to start this in this region. We have allies there already and it is in a region with a lot of tension in the recent years. There are only two better places to try and set such a system up: around Korea or around Iran. Both are particularly dangerous when it comes to nuclear capability although I don't expect anyone to be so stupid as to set such a system up in these regions. It would lead to probably more conflict with those countries.

Maybe we should set one up around just our country... you know... to protect US. If other countries like the idea, they could set their own system up. Let us police and defend ourselves and not other countries.

I can definitely understand the reasons behind Russian skepticism and hostility, but I also agree that a defense system would be very beneficial.

I hope we can really repair our relations with the rest of the world soon. It's fucking unfortunate what's become of our global image in recent times.

I disagree regarding the missile shield.

By enacting the shield it will be beneficial in that it would force a rogue "state" to find other means of warfare...

A well-known military doctrine states that if you only give your enemy one problem to solve, they will surely solve it.

Also, high-energy lasers mounted on large aircraft (or orbital platforms, though less likely) will make this "hit a bullet with a bullet" strategy obsolete soon enough. Much more fun to simply incinerate the missiles over the territory of the country who fired them and watch as the radioactive debris falls on them.

Russia is wrong with pointing their missiles on Ukraine, though I understand their point, but I totally agree with the missile defence system.

Really, I don't care if they build that crap because it can't handle the 1000's of rockets Russia would fire in a war, but not in Europe. Europe would get involved and also, America should just keep their hands out of Europe, especially with the modern day view we have of American politics.

Much more fun to simply incinerate the missiles over the territory of the country who fired them and watch as the radioactive debris falls on them.

Wouldn't it be a rather minuscule amount? Fallout is created by the earth and debris thrown up in the initial explosion. Would an airborne detonation cause nearly as much harm as one done on the surface?

_________________

macrocosm wrote:

Since Chuck Schuldiner died of AIDS, I'm gonna say there is a pretty high chance of him being gay.

No, but an explosion of a radioactive rocket above would create an invisible danger, radiation. You wouldn't have the damage by an explosion, but you would have the radioactivity for many years in the region and cause fatalities.

As a poster stated, the missle shield completely invalidates the concept of deterrence. Missle shields will only result in an arms race, making the world even more unsafe and unstable. And frankly, a far greater nuclear threat is of a warhead falling into the hands of terrorist groups. Frankly, Russia can barely afford basic maintenance on their nuclear sites or even to pay their soldiers. I can understand why they feel threatened but I can't help but feeling Putin is pining for the days of the USSR.

As a poster stated, the missle shield completely invalidates the concept of deterrence. Missle shields will only result in an arms race, making the world even more unsafe and unstable.

Exactly.

The Cold War is fucking over. We should be working on free, fair trade with Russia as oppossed to pointing missles at them. They're potentially our perfect ally if you think about it. A strong Russia would not only open up a huge trading partner for us, but it'd also be less likely that a terrorist group could nab a nuke from them if they could afford to maintain a better defense.

No, but an explosion of a radioactive rocket above would create an invisible danger, radiation. You wouldn't have the damage by an explosion, but you would have the radioactivity for many years in the region and cause fatalities.

When you destroy an armed nuclear missile, will that cause a nuclear bomb to go off at impact of a defensive missile? Or would the plutonium/U-(isotope whatever) just sail to the ground and create a small radioactive mess?

No, but an explosion of a radioactive rocket above would create an invisible danger, radiation. You wouldn't have the damage by an explosion, but you would have the radioactivity for many years in the region and cause fatalities.

When you destroy an armed nuclear missile, will that cause a nuclear bomb to go off at impact of a defensive missile? Or would the plutonium/U-(isotope whatever) just sail to the ground and create a small radioactive mess?

A nuclear bomb is a precision device- it's basically impossible to set it off accidentally. However, 20 kilos of plutonium would be more then enough to kill a lot of people.

Cold War II sucks! its just the same fear of nuclear apocalyse without the cold imagery

You don't know how long I have been waiting to build my own nuclear fallout shelter...

I don't think that there is a large possibility of a cold war between Russia and the US at this moment in time. The US and Iran or US and North Korea is a different story though. A defense system in these regions would make more sense although the other arguments for and against the system are still valid in both cases.

Cold War II sucks! its just the same fear of nuclear apocalyse without the cold imagery

You don't know how long I have been waiting to build my own nuclear fallout shelter...

I don't think that there is a large possibility of a cold war between Russia and the US at this moment in time. The US and Iran or US and North Korea is a different story though. A defense system in these regions would make more sense although the other arguments for and against the system are still valid in both cases.

personally im not sure these defence systems would make any sense, if someone nukes the US or attempts to their certainly going to get nuked back, if not from the US then from Israel perhaps. But if all these nuclear weapons are keeping the world in stalemate and avoiding a major world war then I quote the Groundhogs and say Thank Christ for the Bomb.

If the USA are afraid of a nuclear attack from the middle east, they should have accepted the offer of Russia to use the Qabala Radar. That radar would be more suitable for the officially stated plans.

To me the deployment of this "shield" in Europe, seems like a provocation and the return to the cold war methods. USA exploit the puppet governments in the Eastern Europe to push forward their "national interests". I used clauses for the last phrase, because these are rather personal interests.

As for Russian missiles being pointed in the direction of NATO bases near their borders, it is logical and can be easily explained by the concept of national security. Russia's behaviour in this situation is far from being aggressive, but this cannot be said about the actions of the USA. The situation reminds of this :

Just that the USA smiles and assures that they want cooperation, and Russia tells straight-away that they are not satisfied with the current state of things.

So, you see how the democracy works : people are against the USA military facilities in their countries, yet the governments, who are supposed to represent the people, welcome this idea .

I suggest renaming this thread into something like "Cold War II" or "The tensions between USA and Russian Federation", to cut in short to give this thread a more generalized name, as the situation is not really about Russia and Ukraine.

_________________"Welcome to the sane asylum, you'll never leave if you keep trying" - Blind Illusion.

The sentiment conveyed in this article seems a little misplaced. Putin's rhetoric is fairly standard in its context, but it's little more than that. NATO has not proposed to house a missile shield in Ukraine--this is merely another example of Putin's pragmatic hostility to the west. Russia is an important international player, so the United States and its affiliates cannot ignore Russian demands as they might otherwise be able to do in other countries.

What disappoints me is how much money in Russia is spent on high-scale military projects (like the Father of all Bombs), yet how little attention is paid to the abysmal equivalent of boot camp.

Will the US take the role of defense once again? Thorgrim is correct in that our reputation has been seriously damaged these past number of years. Not only are we relied on, but we're also dismissed for our unwillingness to come forth and work together with others.

Undeniably, this issue has now drawn lines between allies of the US and those on unfriendly terms, namely Iran. Does anyone foresee any serious feud?

I have serious doubts that we'll be going to war with Iran. Bush spent so damn much money on much shittier and more worthless places like Iraq and Afghanistan that a war with an actual country would be cost-prohibitive. And Iran has a sizable military force. Our debt is beyond ridiculous right now. We're stretched too thin like Rome during the twilight years.

You'd think that Ukraine and Russia would be on exceptionally good terms, being as they both are the foundations for the original Russian Kingdom..

Apparently, I'm an idiot when it comes to foriegn relations of other countries; I just always suspected that since all these Slavic countries in Eastern Europe tend to stick together due to such strength in their Slovonic Heritage, they'd be great allies for one another.

This worsens America's tensions with Russia. First off, if troops are deployed to Serbia, Russia will raise hell.

And if Russia aims missles at Ukraine, America will send in the World Police and retaliate in some form.

You'd think that Ukraine and Russia would be on exceptionally good terms, being as they both are the foundations for the original Russian Kingdom..

Apparently, I'm an idiot when it comes to foriegn relations of other countries; I just always suspected that since all these Slavic countries in Eastern Europe tend to stick together due to such strength in their Slovonic Heritage, they'd be great allies for one another.

This worsens America's tensions with Russia. First off, if troops are deployed to Serbia, Russia will raise hell.

And if Russia aims missles at Ukraine, America will send in the World Police and retaliate in some form.

It really is the beginning of the end, isn't it?

And then China will enter on the side of the Russians, and then epic war ensues!

But nah, governments these days aren't nearly as aggressive and naive as they were back in WW2, and generally seem to avoid any drastic measures, such military action, when it's between two developed countries. In my opinion the very worst Russia would do in this situation is cut off trade with Ukraine (which would be pretty disastrous for the Ukraine as they rely heavily on oil from Russia) rather than use military force. I also doubt they'll do much if the US sends troops to Serbia and Kosovo, as while Russia is against the independence of Kosovo, it doesn't really directly affect Russia very much if the US try to take control of the situation.
It does annoy me that Russia are generally portrayed/viewed by the Western media and public as being aggressive, when a lot of the time it's been the US and NATO taking various measures to piss off Russia.

A missile defense system would only be a temporary solution for easing tension in global politics. Building one would start a kind of technological arms race, with countries looking for ways to beat the defense system, then other countires looking for better defense, and escalating.

I really don't understand why the US finds it so necessary to openly aggravate Russia by building this unnecessary missile shield. I can't help but see it as America trying to extend total influence and control into Europe and isolate Russia. Essentially an American invasion of Europe.